Is the Catholic Church Sexist?

[Pound_Coolish]

Some days ago, I was in a church of classical architecture and taste and glanced at the ceiling. The ceiling was beautifully adorned with fourteen icons of saints. It struck me for the first times there were a lot of beards. I searched for a woman, expecting to easily find some. However, it took some time before I finally located one token chick, St. Cecilia, in the far corner out of the fourteen.

Sexism today is largely passive. It’s remarkable that even today movies sometimes fail the Bechdel test, and even ignoring that, so few movies star women compared to those that star men. We have yet to have a woman president, and it looks as if the first woman to take the presidency may well be one who is famous in large part due to her husband. Female top execs are still only at 14%. This is not deliberate stereotyping. It is passive. It is various decisions by various people all adding up to an overall sexist big picture. The greatest weapon against women is not sexist laws, or vocally sexist individuals like a certain hairball that’s been talked of too much lately. It is an unspoken majority. The greatest weapon against women is silence.

The Catholic Church appears to be such a weapon.

The Catholic Church is, officially, pro woman. It talks of how motherhood is beautiful and indeed a job. It endlessly honors our Blessed Mother in art. Still, the big-picture seems to be sexist. It is simply a matter of proportion. Individually, each case may have a very good theological or practical explanation. The problem is the over-all inequality.

First, let’s examine the roles we allot to men as opposed to women. Only men are allowed to be priests. (Again, we are not here considering the reasoning of each individual case. Only the overall resulting disproportion.) Only men can be bishops. I assume only men can be popes. It is not the in Cathecism to my memory, it seems to simply be assumed that a woman cannot lead the church. Only men can be deacons. Only men can be be friars. Only men can be monks. In fact, only men can join Holy Orders at all in any form.

Women can, though, be nuns. That is sort of irrelevant as, again, it is technically irrelevant to Holy Orders. It is a niche women carved out for themselves, not part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Nonetheless, the office is officially recognized by the Church so we will count it.

It is still somewhat traditional for men to be the head of the Household. The church does not teach that men are in charge of their wives and prominent Catholics frown on the opinion. However, to my knowledge, it is not doctrinally condemned. (Though it could be.)

It is hard to find information on the proportion of female saints to male saints. It does not seem to be a point of concern for most. However, according to a trivia site, “On the website www.catholic.org/saints/female.php I counted 786 female saints. and then on www.catholic.org/saints/stindex/php where they have all the saints listed I just went through those starting with A and found 902. So it is clear to me that the males will outnumber the females by a decent margin.”

I checked the site myself. It is hard to identify the gender of the names as they are ancient and obscure. However, out of the first hundred names, there were three identifiable feminine ones.

There are thirty three male doctors of the church. As for female doctors, there were none until 1970. There are now four female doctors.

The most respected and known woman within the Catholic Church is holds no physical office within the actual Catholic church here on earth. She is our Holy Mother, Mary. Mary is endlessly honored in statues, paintings, and stained-glass windows. Much of the art of Mary is well known for its tenderness and beauty.

Mary is known for giving birth. Specifically, for giving birth to a better known and respected man. Women of the church are encouraged to see her as a role model. She is also respected for her great virtue, being the only entirely sinless human ever to live besides Jesus. However, if you ask a Catholic why we respect Mary so much, they are likely to first say because she is the Mother of God.

It is hard to say that the big picture, ultimately, is blatantly disproportionate. This is one of the hugest challenges to me as a Catholic.

Let’s not devoid off the topic into, but the Catholic church has been instrumental in the liberation of women, but the Catholic church has canonized women more regularly in recent decades, but women hold most educational and ecclesiastical roles in the church. And especially, but there are reasons for each of the cases you mentioned. Yes, there are reasons. The problem is how we silently and passively agree on each of these small, individual cases all adding up to a big picture wherein the church is disproportionately patriarchal. In terms of proportion, doesn’t it seem the Church is sexist?

 

[Sarcelle]

Well to be fair, the Church has never taught that women are inferior to men. Individual men may go around thinking that but it was never official Church doctrine.

As for women not being priests? Simple. The Church was never given authority to ordain women. It is not a reflection on the supposed worth of women.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Thank you for the reply!

Again, the question isn’t so much about any one of the particular cases. They all have reasons. They problem is, all these individual cases add up as a whole to a religion which overall privileges men.

 

[HelenRose]

No.

All one has to do is look at our Blessed Mother Mary. Queen of Heaven. It was Her Fiat that freed all women.

Mary made Her Fiat to God without asking her husband-to-be, her father, her brothers (if she had any) nor to any other man that may have had authority over her. In that one instant all women became free to worship and answer God’s call without permission from a man.

Mary, a free woman, a woman empowered with love, compassion and glory, outshines all men.

The Church honors a woman in a way that no other society has ever done. She is Queen. She is the Mother of God.

The Church is not sexiest. What is sexist is when someone says, “Well, Mary was just a woman who happened to carry the Christ Child.” The Church never says “just a woman” about any woman. There are too many women saints for them to even dare to think of such a thing

 

[HelenRose]

Sexist is believing that feminine is inferior to masculine. This is the greatest mistake our feminists has made. Our radical feminists hate femininity. They are the ones who are stripping women of the strength and glory that belong to womanhood and are only succeeding in making women a form of inferior masculinity.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Mary made Her Fiat to God without asking her husband-to-be, her father, her brothers (if she had any) nor to any other man that may have had authority over her. In that one instant all women became free to worship and answer God’s call without permission from a man.

If by fiat you mean agreeing to be impregnated, yes.

Mary, a free woman, a woman empowered with love, compassion and glory, outshines all men.

True. Excellent point.

Mary, a free woman, a woman empowered with love, compassion and glory, outshines all men.

A position she rose to by agreeing to perform the traditionally feminine role of motherhood. Specifically, she became Queen for giving birth to a male.

I will not address your second post as it seems to be ad-hominems directed at feminists.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! I do truly want to figure this one out.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Sexist is believing that feminine is inferior to masculine. This is the greatest mistake our feminists has made. Our radical feminists hate femininity. They are the ones who are stripping women of the strength and glory that belong to womanhood and are only succeeding in making women a form of inferior masculinity.

This is the reason pound collage doesn’t understand the Church’s position on women.

Unless oppressive groups like ISIS or western feminism have influence, women always have and always will hold more influence on people than men. Who gives the ok for sex? Who destroys or cares for their children in utero? Who feeds them after they are born? Who raises children and forms their minds? Women do.

What do men do? Protect and provide.

 

[Sarcelle]

Sexist is believing that feminine is inferior to masculine. This is the greatest mistake our feminists has made. Our radical feminists hate femininity. They are the ones who are stripping women of the strength and glory that belong to womanhood and are only succeeding in making women a form of inferior masculinity.

Indeed.

It also goes for individuals. Better to be a first rate version of yourself than a second rate version of someone else.

 

[Sarcelle]

If by fiat you mean agreeing to be impregnated, yes.
True. Excellent point.A position she rose to by agreeing to perform the traditionally feminine role of motherhood. Specifically, she became Queen for giving birth to a male.

I will not address your second post as it seems to be ad-hominems directed at feminists.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! I do truly want to figure this one out.

She became Queen because of her humility and trust in God. She is an example of the humble being raised up.

 

[Jarteta]

As to the point about the priesthood, I was listening to EWTN radio recently, and a very good point was made in that the Church has always taught and promoted the equality of man and woman but never of the sameness of man and woman, for God clearly created us for different purposes and with different characteristics unique to our individual sexes. As a priest acts in persona christi, it goes without saying that, as Christ came down in the form of a human male, it would be anatomically incorrect for a woman to act in His very person. At the same time, though, a man could not become married to Christ as we see in the vow made by a sister or a nun, for, anatomically, it would not make sense for a man to marry himself to Christ, only a woman could.

Essentially, as I have emphasized already, man and woman have been made equally but differently, at least in the anatomical and mental sense. Thus, it goes without saying that we will have different roles, guided in different ways by God’s will.

As to the point about Doctors, it is true that the number is heavily tipped in favor of men, and this is perhaps something to be worked upon, but concessions also have to be made to history. It is well known that throughout the majority of human history, men have predominantly been chosen for a formal education over women, a flaw that has only been addressed and attempted to be changed in the past century or so. St. Catherine of Siena is a prime example of a Church doctor who did not receive a formal education, but she tends to be a unique case who God specifically intended to write and educate Christians on the will of God. The mere fact that the majority of Church doctors are male does not mean that status as a doctor signifies a greater sanctity for the specific person, but rather that their writings and works are specifically contributory to understanding of theology or doctrine. Many saints, both male and female, serve as perfect examples of what we are called to do, and do not merit any more or less the title of sanctity than those with the title of Church doctor.

Only men are allowed to be priests. (Again, we are not here considering the reasoning of each individual case. Only the overall resulting disproportion.) Only men can be bishops. I assume only men can be popes. It is not the in Cathecism to my memory, it seems to simply be assumed that a woman cannot lead the church. Only men can be deacons. Only men can be be friars. Only men can be monks. In fact, only men can join Holy Orders at all in any form.

Here, though, you list priests, bishops, and popes as being completely separable vocations, when really must be observed that they are mere levels in the sacrament of Holy Orders, with the diaconate being given the right to preach the Gospel, priests being given the right to perform all sacraments accept matrimony (which is really between the bride and the groom), confirmation (except with the permission of the bishop), and holy orders, and bishops being considered the fullness of the priesthood, being given the right to perform all 7 sacraments. We must also remember that the Pope is essentially the head bishop of the entire church, with the papacy having the meaning of “bridge-builder”. Monks and friars are different titles given to men of religious orders, similar to the title of sister, mother, or nun, and do not entail a special privilege to men over women.

For the discrepancy between male and female saints, it must also be remembered that not all saints are recognized by the Church, many are only recognized by God. It shows a true sign of humility that there exist saints out there that were so contrite as to go unrecognized by the majority. Many, many of the male saints held positions in the Church, and it can be inferred that this has resulted in there being more male than female saints recognized by the Church. As holding such positions, it would be nearly impossible for some of these male priests to go unrecognized by the Church.

As many have pointed out as well, our Blessed Mother is a prime example of the love and respect the Church has for women. You pointed out that we hold her son, our Lord Jesus Christ, a male, in higher esteem than her, but this is only natural as we believe Him divine and her purely human. She represents, though, the perfect human, for she fully accepted God’s will and sinlessly cared for her son. You replied to one post that she merely accepted being impregnated, as though this were some form of suppression or a symbol of a female’s worth. It is common in this modern era to see a negative connotation for the word “impregnate”, a result of secularism and the many cases in which impregnation has unfortunately been seen as a hindrance rather than a boon. To be responsible for a human life in such an intimate way is something men will never experience, and a blessing granted by God. It should not be seen as a burden. We honor Mary above all saints and all other humans, except for our Lord Jesus Christ who was both man and God, an important distinction to be made.

And finally I will leave you with one other point. Sacrifice goes hand in hand with true Love, something oft forgotten in this modern age, and as such, humility through sacrifice is something very much desirable, and something that will only result in a fuller and more intimate relationship with God. The most wondrous of the saints sacrificed for our Lord, be it through social oppression or physical loss. It is when we turn the other cheek and know in our hearts that we are loved regardless of social opinion that we realize the Love God has for us.

Joshua Arteta

 

[sugarmouse]

If by fiat you mean agreeing to be impregnated, yes.
True. Excellent point.A position she rose to by agreeing to perform the traditionally feminine role of motherhood. Specifically, she became Queen for giving birth to a male.

Well, isn’t it rather sexist of us to assume that the role of motherhood is something inferior?

Isn’t it sexist of us to reduce being a mother to simply “being impregnated” and “giving birth”, rather than feeding, teaching, caring for and comforting that child until adulthood (and beyond)?

Isn’t it sexist of us to assume that “all” Mary did was give birth to Jesus, and forgetting how she: dedicated her life to serving God and her neighbours, enduring hostility and ostracism for her decision, going through extreme suffering as she witnessed her only son being tortured and killed, helping to form the early Church, dedicating her eternal life still to serving God and serving others as she intercedes for us on earth and in purgatory (even though, have you seen how people mock and ridicule her down here?), taking an even more active role by appearing to the saints and mystics throughout Church history…

Isn’t it rather that we assume that “all” Mary did was give birth and that’s it? There’s no other human person in history who has done more for God and humanity than she has.

 

[pianistclare]

Have you ever been behind the scenes in a parish?
There is a high percentage of female parishioners there doing all the heavy lifting.

Women do most of the teaching, most of the liturgy planning, most of the cleaning, taking care of the things in the Sacristy, and sit on every single committee.
I WISH there were more men to pick up the slack. I long for male volunteers and (name removed by moderator)ut.
So do the priests.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Thank you for the reply!

Again, the question isn’t so much about any one of the particular cases. They all have reasons. They problem is, all these individual cases add up as a whole to a religion which overall privileges men.

" . . . a religion" though? Seen many female imams, or female orthodox / conservative rabbis? Female Eastern Orthodox priests?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Have you ever been behind the scenes in a parish?
There is a high percentage of female parishioners there doing all the heavy lifting.

Women do most of the teaching, most of the liturgy planning, most of the cleaning, taking care of the things in the Sacristy, and sit on every single committee.
I WISH there were more men to pick up the slack. I long for male volunteers and (name removed by moderator)ut.
So do the priests.

 

[RPRPsych]

Sexist is believing that feminine is inferior to masculine. This is the greatest mistake our feminists has made. Our radical feminists hate femininity. They are the ones who are stripping women of the strength and glory that belong to womanhood and are only succeeding in making women a form of inferior masculinity.

Excellent post.

 

[jilly4ski]

I think you are confused about the process of canonization. Canonization cases are brought forth, not by the Church as a whole, but rather by groups or individuals in the Church. So, the Marian Rosary Society" of random parish, knows of a local person who had done great work in the community many years ago and decide to fund the effort to pursue canonization. In the past one would need to be a relatively public or otherwise wealthy person (to do enough good) to even be known enough to have a case that someone would fund.

Thus, priests, bishops, and popes, and religious (monks, friars, and nuns) make up the majority of saints. In fact you would find very few lay people who are saints until somewhat recently, and even if they were not clerics or religious, they were wealthy or a public person (such as Saint Thomas More, or kings or rulers). Combine that with secular society which often restricted women’s education, social standing, or wealth, the fact that there are woman saints who are not martyrs is surprising. The Church gave woman the opportunity to be educated, to be public figures doing good in the Church and the world, allowing them to be known so that someone could bring forward their canonization case.

 

[pensmama87]

Well, isn’t it rather sexist of us to assume that the role of motherhood is something inferior?

Isn’t it sexist of us to reduce being a mother to simply “being impregnated” and “giving birth”, rather than feeding, teaching, caring for and comforting that child until adulthood (and beyond)?

Isn’t it sexist of us to assume that “all” Mary did was give birth to Jesus, and forgetting how she: dedicated her life to serving God and her neighbours, enduring hostility and ostracism for her decision, going through extreme suffering as she witnessed her only son being tortured and killed, helping to form the early Church, dedicating her eternal life still to serving God and serving others as she intercedes for us on earth and in purgatory (even though, have you seen how people mock and ridicule her down here?), taking an even more active role by appearing to the saints and mystics throughout Church history…

Isn’t it rather that we assume that “all” Mary did was give birth and that’s it? There’s no other human person in history who has done more for God and humanity than she has.

Right. I’m a mother, and even in cushy 21st century America carrying, birthing, and raising children definitely involves work. It’s not something you just agree to and passively experience with a mild sort of interest.

Being a mother has taught me much about Mary, and even so I have only a glimpse of the strength and determination and faith she must have possessed here on Earth. When people dismiss her role in the Church I have to laugh a little (especially since I used to as well.) I think it says more about their being sexist, rather than those they accuse of sexism.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Official authority in the Church is held only by men, bishops and priests. The Church has always been patriarchal. Indeed it is written in scripture that women must be silent in the assembly. Their power and authority is informal.

 

[HelenRose]

If by fiat you mean agreeing to be impregnated, yes.
True. Excellent point.A position she rose to by agreeing to perform the traditionally feminine role of motherhood. Specifically, she became Queen for giving birth to a male.

I will not address your second post as it seems to be ad-hominems directed at feminists.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! I do truly want to figure this one out.

Her Fiat was “Yes” to God’s will. She did not ask the permission of any man. She said “Yes I will risk being stoned. Yes I will watch my child die. Yes I will do the will of God even if my husband-to-be leaves me, even my father turns His back on me, even if I am cast out of society”. This “Yes” was between her and God - not the demands of her society.

I only direct ad-hominins to those women who believe that being feminine is inferior to being masculine - only to women who believe that womanliness is weakness - only to those women who believe that bearing children is slavery.

My grandmothers and one the great-grandmother I know about were feminists who honored the title “woman”. Who honored the title of mother, not only for themselves but for the countless number of women who, although did not give birth to their own children, gave their mothering care, love, compassion towards all of mankind. I am fortunate that I was raised by a strong woman who raised four children on her own. I am fortunate that I have a rich history of strong intelligent female ancestors who believed that giving voting rights to woman would improve the lives of children. They would be dismayed to learn that “equal rights” has caused the death of nearly 60 million unborn children in the United States alone. They would be dismayed to learn that women have thrown away their strengths, their gifts and their glory to become cheap imitations of men.

I direct ad-hominins only to those women who hate men even as they attempt to imitate them.

And as my grandmother, who was born about 1880 said, “If the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it.”

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Unless oppressive groups like ISIS or western feminism have influence

Those are two rather odd institutions to mention in the same breath.

Who gives the ok for sex? Who destroys or cares for their children in utero? Who feeds them after they are born? Who raises children and forms their minds? Women do.

You sincerely think motherhood makes women’s rights proportionate to those of men? Feeding children? Sincerely?

As for men doing the heavy work, that work happens to include the corporate world and the entire economy, choosing when to fight wars, and thus far, running the country. All rather powerful positions. Yes, we do do a lot of the heavy work, and women have fought for centuries to have their share in that heavy work.

She became Queen because of her humility and trust in God. She is an example of the humble being raised up.

Fair point.

As a priest acts in persona christi, it goes without saying that, as Christ came down in the form of a human male, it would be anatomically incorrect for a woman to act in His very person.

Being Catholic I accept the doctrine of male priesthood. I’ll never understand it though. Anatomical correctness determines who can embody the person of Christ? What?

Yes, as granted in my topic post, priest, deacon, etc are all a part of Holy Orders. Just as Agriculture, Budget, and Energy and Natural Resources are all Congressional Committees. Or as agents, writers, and publishers all fall under the book publishing world. They are, though, distinct offices.

Many, many of the male saints held positions in the Church, and it can be inferred that this has resulted in there being more male than female saints recognized by the Church. As holding such positions, it would be nearly impossible for some of these male priests to go unrecognized by the Church.

So there is bias towards men who hold Church office in achieving sainthood? That’s terrible.

You do make some fascinating and reassuring points about the number of doctors of the church.

However, again, my question isn’t about any one of these cases. I noted, individually, they have explanations. My question is: doesn’t the Church overall privilege men? I don’t seek an explanation for the individual cases. I seek an explanation for the overall privileging of men.

She represents, though, the perfect human, for she fully accepted God’s will and sinlessly cared for her son.

True.

To be responsible for a human life in such an intimate way is something men will never experience, and a blessing granted by God. It should not be seen as a burden.

You meant to say, one hopes, it should not be seen as purely a burden. Regardless of the conventions of the time, to be impregnated at age 15-16 is a burden.

I think you are confused about the process of canonization. Canonization cases are brought forth, not by the Church as a whole, but rather by groups or individuals in the Church. So, the Marian Rosary Society" of random parish, knows of a local person who had done great work in the community many years ago and decide to fund the effort to pursue canonization. In the past one would need to be a relatively public or otherwise wealthy person (to do enough good) to even be known enough to have a case that someone would fund.

Again, terrible.

A note to several posters: no one argued Mary “just” did anything. The point is what she mainly remembered for. She figures in the Bible because she gave birth to and cared for Jesus. Very little else is mentioned. She is mentioned mainly insofar as she connected to the life of a male. Granted, a male who is Jesus, so it could be written off as a technicality. The fact remains, however. She is remembered for fulfilling the traditional gender role of giving birth. Please do not assume this is to say there is something wrong with motherhood. As stated in the topic statement, it is a job. It is also invaluable to society and a very precious, beautiful thing. Still, people talk of the NT and how it challenges the social norms of the time and here the most famous woman of the Church makes her mark in the Bible the exact same way the vast majority (not all, please don’t start siting exceptions) made their mark. By giving birth to a male. No challenge of ancient social norms there.

Have you ever been behind the scenes in a parish?
There is a high percentage of female parishioners there doing all the heavy lifting.

Women do most of the teaching, most of the liturgy planning, most of the cleaning, taking care of the things in the Sacristy, and sit on every single committee.

I specifically asked the conversation not veer off into this. It is duly noted in the topic post that women hold most religious education and ecclesiastical positions among the laity. Those are not official offices of the Church. We all owe a great debt to them and their work is invaluable and under appreciated. Thank you for your post.

Some others posted while I was making this post. Sorry, I’ll get to you guys!